Forum:Writing for a Mad Page
I've noticed a lot of confusion lately on how a Mad page is supposed to function and how one writes for one. The template to the right is the latest version of Template:Theory policy. (If anyone wants to edit that or find better ways to phrase the information it contains, go ahead. I'm just making things up as I go along. Or just respond below.) This template is partly based on similar templates used by other wikis on their theory pages. In our case, a friendly admin over at Fringepedia happened to stop by and offer the use of theirs. Three kinds of things belong on a Mad page: * Theories * Speculative information or commonly accepted facts that don't fit in the main article (space issues, neutrality issues, etc) * Links to other writing on that subject, such as related mad pages, forum topics, blog posts, or writing hosted on other sites (like to fanfiction, for instance) Mad pages are not... * Forums - Back and forth discussion should not take place on the Mad page itself (nor on its talk page). Put your discussion starters, reactions, and comments on a forum. * Blog posts - These are a brand new feature on Wikia. I encourage everyone to use them! If you have detailed thoughts or in-depth analysis that doesn't necessarily support a specific argument, but it's not a call for discussion, write a blog post and then put a link to that blog post on the mad page. Making clear statements in favor of one point or another allows users to append the Theory support template, which shows a list of people who agree or disagree with a theory. Also note that, just as with regular articles, you do not have ownership of what you write on a mad page. If you have thoughts that you'd prefer that others didn't edit, put those in a blog post. Blog posts are automatically locked to a single author. I hope this clears things up and didn't just make them more confusing. Please respond below if you disagree with anything, have comments, or feel there hasn't been consensus on something. — m (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC) : applauds Nicely said, I think. I did go back and fiddle my Von Pinn one because of your comments. -- Corgi 18:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC) : It's probably too late to change at this point, but I think the name is part of the problem. Calling something "mad" doesn't suggest a reasoned discussion of alternate theories. Argadi 00:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC) :: This is true. Other sites use "Theory" where we use "Mad". But you can't beat it for style, especially considering the source for our wiki. Seeing "Agatha Heterodyne/Mad" and "Klaus Wulfenbach/Mad" makes me laugh. — m (talk) 14:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC) This would be a hellava lot more help, if it showed how to create a Mad page. --Bosda Di'Chi 13:05, October 23, 2009 (UTC) : What would you like? There are several ways to create things. **Just make a link then click the link. **If your browser shows the address bar just append .../Mad to the title and press go. :: Both of those give blank pages. **We could have a create box in category:Mad that allows a title to be typed and creates the page including preloading a template to start people off on the right foot. **Said create box could be put elsewhere if you can suggest a good elsewhere.--Rej ¤¤? 08:08, October 24, 2009 (UTC) Where to put forum and theory variants of main article? Rej ¤¤? : The problem I figure is most important is that before a formal theory, people need to discuss ideas informally. Out of that comes either nothing (failed ideas or half sparky ideas) or maybe a gem that we want others to support. Informal discussion are currently best forums particularly fan theories. Unfortunately Mad pages have a sad history. The confusion persists. The problem probably won't go away as long as Mad is used to mean "a place for well thought out and defended theories" rather than "a place to cut loose with speculation for the amusement of self and others". There is not an overwhelming consensus for either one. Please note that the first meaning goes against the accepted meaning of madness. Also note that the first meaning is the one this site currently subscribes to. Anymahow. To stay out of trouble I would suggest that speculation be carried out in fan theory forums. Mad pages be formed out of pieces of those discussions which meet the minimal criteria of: *Has at least one supporter. *Doesn't contradict any obvious current canon. And I would think putting a create box for a mad page in promising discussions would be the best way to go. Is there anything I'm missing? : What I see as the problem is that the "appropriate" place for the sort of discussion that has started to appear on the /Mad pages, Forum:Fan Theories, is not as obvious or convenient to access as might be desired. I'm thinking what we may need to do is accomodate the felt need by creating /Forum pages. --Quadibloc 20:51, October 24, 2009 (UTC) :: Okay. That has merit. What namespace would you want the /Forum pages to be in? :: Once decided we could include link(s) at the end of any main article. ::* Edit forum connected to this article. ::* Edit mad page connected to this article. ::Red links could preload templates to help guide and start things off. --Rej ¤¤? 00:21, October 25, 2009 (UTC) :::I am assuming that the /Forum pages would simply be in the main namespace, the same as the /Mad pages, as opposed to in the Forum: or Mad: namespaces. --Quadibloc 00:57, October 25, 2009 (UTC) ::::I thought you would say that. Can we sell it to the KDL folks? In the mean time I gened up the template. (It currently puts the .../Forum page in the Forum:... name space. That gives a redundant title. For me the redundancy is a good way of insuring we don't collide with an already existing forum. On the other hand that would not be troublesome either. On the third (mutant) hand the redundancy gives you a clue that this is directly connected to a main article page. ::::If we get the KDLer's to go along with putting it in main space then all that is moot. :::::I don't understand the reference to the Klaus Defence League. They have their own web page, I thought. Please elucidate. --Quadibloc 02:29, October 25, 2009 (UTC) :::::: Sorry, didn't mean to be obscure. I ment Mnenyver, Corgi and those who usually side with them. They also seem to be the ones who populate the KDL so I lumped them when maybe I shouldn't. --Rej ::::::: I apologize for the fact that after this was discussed, I had less time than I thought I would, and so I did not progress further with this. Initially, my inclination was to put the /Forum pages in the main namespace, but I see that this would be confusing. There's also a Talk: namespace, so /Talk instead wouldn't fix that. --Quadibloc 05:26, December 10, 2009 (UTC) ::::::: Cool. So we agree to put forums in the Forum: name space. So we are down to needing only to decide between two name formats. ;Either:Forum:Main Page Name ;or:Forum:Main Page Name/Forum :::::By the way, I discuss my idea more thoroughly in Forum:Help Wanted - Mad Pages and in there, there's a statement by Corgi that we had problems using the Mad: namespace. If that's true, it may be unsafe to use the Forum: namespace for this. --Quadibloc 02:37, October 25, 2009 (UTC) :::::: If we confine ourselves to just hyperlinking the pages together I think we will be safe enough. I suspect with Zarchne's purpose they were transcluding main pages into the mad space. Possibly recursively. --Rej ¤¤? 02:49, October 25, 2009 (UTC) Suggested linking template * So gives: Preloading from Template:Main/Preload,Template:Mad/Preload, and Template:Main Forum/Preload respectively. I did some work on Mad/Preload, The other two are just placeholders right now. You can play w/o saving pages to see what its like. --Rej ¤¤? 02:27, October 25, 2009 (UTC) The current template is at User:Rej Maddog/tc/Edit Mad Forum and a earlier version at: Template:Edit Mad Forum The difference it in the formating of the edit string. The idea is that going forward subst:Edit_Mad_Forum be transcluded on to each main page and its mad and forum pages when they exist. Then users are gently encouraged to use these edit links when editing a page. The advantage of doing it this way is that if the page needs to be created, it will be created with preloaded content. For mad pages this will put the directions on the page from the start. It will also put the mad page in the mad category. The way the edit links work if the page already exists then that is what you get, the preload doesn't count. You also don't get the preload if you create the page via a red link. Which is why I can only do this when the user specifically selects to edit the page. Example: This is still a work in progress, in addition to the preload the links can be tweaked to use special edit intro's for each page type. Giving us another chance to explain what is expected from the contributor. I also apparently have a couple of appearance tweaks still to go. So for now this is not ready for wide spread use. It can be used selectively to good purpose --Rej ¤¤? 20:30, December 10, 2009 (UTC)